Improperly Licensed Aircraft Mechanics, a Plane Crash Hazard

It is appalling enough that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drags its feet on airline safety, leading to conditions conducive for a plane crash; but now we find that there may be hundreds of aircraft mechanics working in the airline industry who are barely licensed to work with the plane.

According to an investigation by WFAA-TV, the mechanics in question were trained in FAA-approved centers that had extremely poor educational standards. These bogus testing centers function like “diploma mills,” where mechanics are given Aircraft Mechanic certificates without being properly tested. In some centers, mechanics were  unable to speak or read English.

FAA FailuresThe investigation reveals the utter failure of the FAA to regulate the testing centers it has approved. The agency has been aware of the problem for years and has done little to fix it. In instances where the agency uncovered improperly tested mechanics, they simply gave the mechanic a skeletal retest and allowed them to continue “fixing” planes. Even mechanics who managed to fail the retest were not banned from repairing a plane. In other words, workers who have been through bogus testing are still out there working for aircraft manufacturers and repair stations.

What is even more shocking is that the FAA does not warn companies of these mechanics or that their employees may be improperly skilled. According to the agency “it is not their job”. An earlier federal investigation found that many mechanics were not given enough time to complete large portions of the written, oral, and practical exams. A test intended to take a single day or several days to complete was packed into a one-hour time period. Cheating was rampant during tests.

Unfortunately, the FAA does little to regulate the flight of turboprop planes at an increased risk of crashes in icy weather, and fails to act on National Transportation Safety Board recommendations. Now, we find that the agency fails to strictly ensure that mechanics who receive certification from centers it approves are 100% qualified and trained to do their job.

With a number of airline accidents in recent years being attributed to mechanical malfunctioning, aviation accident attorneys should not be surprised at what this investigation has turned up. The bogus testing process could have been going on since the early 90’s which means that there are, by the FAA’s own admission, at least 1,300 mechanics whose “credentials may be in question.” As far as plane crash lawyers are concerned those credentials should not be questioned, but revoked.

 

 

 

 

American Airlines Mechanics & Crew Blamed for 2007 Accident

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) blames the mechanics and crew of an American Airlines flight that had to make an emergency landing after an engine fire in 2007.

The accident in September 2007 occurred during the departure climb of Fight 1400 from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. The engine caught fire and the aircraft, an MD-82, with 143 people on board, had to return to the airport. By then, the aircraft's rudder had been damaged and the landing gear had failed. There were no injuries reported, but the plane suffered serious damage. The NTSB held a hearing last week to examine the causes of the accident and has zeroed in on failure of the plane's mechanics. Those failures, the board said, were compounded by the failures of the crew members to identify and resolve those mistakes. The airline is facing intense scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the NTSB's fault finding does not make things any better for the carrier. 

Aviation Accident AttorneyTen days before the accident the aircraft experienced starting trouble; mechanics replaced the starter valve at least six times before the day of the accident. Also on that day, the engine failed to start and had to be started manually. After the accident, investigations revealed that a metal filter had disintegrated due to poor maintenance. This created a variety of mechanical failures that, ultimately, led to the engine catching fire. Investigations also found that the crew members of the plane made errors that added to the problem and could have, potentially, resulted in tragic consequences. For one, the pilot abandoned his emergency checklist and did not inform passengers of the trouble or shut off the fuel supply to the fire. The co-pilot, meanwhile, tried to get the cockpit door open after short-circuiting had set off an automatic door locking system. There was a set of safety measures that should have been followed in an orderly manner, and instead, crew members, at the highest level downward, failed, exacerbating the situation.

American Airlines Crash

Accidents like these could be avoided if big commercial airlines followed safety procedures properly. Failure to do so results, not inly in millions of dollars of damage to equipment, but could also, potentially, cause serious injury or death.

If you have sustained injuries or lost a loved one in a plane crash, lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP can help you obtain the compensation you deserve. Contact an experienced aviation accident lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP to discuss your options for compensation.

 

 

 

Southwest Issues Warning about Runway Defect at Buffalo Airport

Southwest Airlines has issued a warning to its pilots about a potential hazard on the Buffalo Airport runway – the same runway Continental Flight 3407 was to land on last week.

According to the alert, there may be an obstruction on the runway that can impact equipment used by planes coming in for a landing, this impact could lead to the pilot slowing the plane down to an unsafe speed. The hazard can affect planes on autopilot and can result in the aircraft's nose pitching up to a 30 degree angle. Evidence from the data recorder recovered from Flight 3407's crash site shows that the nose of the aircraft pitched up by approximately 31 degrees as the plane automatically began to dive trying gain speed.

Continental Flight 3407Among the many theories about the crash of Continental Flight 3407 is the idea that the pilot overreacted after the plane automatically began to dive, in order to generate speed. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has denied that these ground anomalies at Buffalo Niagara International Airport have any link to the Continental crash. According to FAA representatives, Southwest aircraft do not used the same route used by Flight 3407 to get to that particular runway. The FAA has, apparently, been aware of the ground obstruction hazard, Southwest mentions in its alert, for the past 8 years. According to the FAA representative, Southwest uses terrain on the northern side of the airport that can generate abnormalities in aircraft signals.

Meanwhile, the mystery of the pitching of the aircraft's nose is becoming a vital part of investigations in the Continental crash. The team is looking at understanding pilot and crew behavior in the moments just before the crash of Flight 3407. For investigators, that could be the toughest part of the probe; any audio information recovered from aircraft black boxes after a crash is notoriously hard to decipher. It's rare for a black box recording to reveal strong clues about the pilot's intent, his plans and his state of mind in the moments before the aviation accident. Investigating what the crew of the doomed flight was thinking or planning just before the crash can take months of decoding the grunts, curt comments and mumbles of the crew just before the crash.

Plane Accident Resources

Our experienced staff has helped many victims cope with life-changing tragedies and get the physical, emotional and financial help they need. If you're looking for answers about an aviation crash, attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP can help you.

Other Planes in Buffalo Area Had Icing and Landed Safely

Other pilots' experiences and evidence of the Buffalo airline accident that killed 50 people, points away from mechanical failure and toward icing and pilot actions as the cause of the catastrophe.

Just before the crash, the Colgan Air crew of Continental Connection Flight 3407 reported icing on the windshield, about a minute later the plane stalled, pitching and rolling violently, and fell to the ground within 26 seconds. According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) member Steve Chealander, "Everything that's found thus far on the engine is consistent with high-powered flight," meaning, the plane's engine was running correctly.

Plane Accident AttorneyAnother Colgan turboprop that flew through the area about half an hour after Flight 3407 reported "moderate" icing and landed safely. Also, 50 miles south of the accident site, another flight crew reported the most dangerous category of icing, "severe," this crew also landed without incident.

In accordance with NTSB recommendations, the presence of ice in and around the area Flight 3407 went down in indictes that pilot, Capt. Marvin Renslow, should have been flying the plane manually. Instead, as the plane flew through dangerous weather, it was on autopilot, leaving Renslow with less than desireable feel for the plane. While the NTSB recommends that planes be flown manually in any icy conditions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FFA) says aircraft are safe on autopilot in "light to moderate icing," This discrepency in regulations is at the top of the NTSB's list of standards for the FAA to change.

Airline Accident Help

Working through a life-changing accident physically, mentally and financially can be very difficult. Our team has assisted many families in getting the help they need after a tragic accident. If you have questions concerning an airplane accident, lawyers at Arnold & Itkin LLP can get you the answers and resources you need.

Pilot Fatigue; Factor in Aviation Accidents

Airlines in the U.S. are flying longer hours than ever before, and yet, aviation rules that ensure pilots get enough rest between long haul flights remain insufficient.

Pilot fatigue has played a role in several recent plane crashes. Federal aviation rules defining rest hours for crew members, including pilots, have not done much to address the increasing number of long hauls that many pilots with major airlines routinely undertake. In 2006, Delta Airlines introduced its own measures for rest hours for pilots just as it began offering non-stop Mumbai-New York flights, a journey of more than 16 hours. Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established standards for work and rest hours for crew members, based on the measures Delta used. However, there have been concerns from other airlines that the FAA failed to follow normal procedures for development of new regulations. The new standards fix the number of hours a pilot can be on duty at 23. Pilots must also have 24 hours of rest before the flight. Additionally, pilots must be allowed 48 hours of rest during layovers and an extra rest period during flights.

In December, American Airlines and Continental Airlines, among others, filed a lawsuit seeking a standard procedure for the development of new FAA rules. According to representatives of these airlines, they have a problem with the way FAA went about formulating the new regulations. Critics of the airlines, including the pilots' unions, have called the lawsuit an attempt by the airlines to delay enforcement of the new regulations, which will be more costly to enforce. Currently, airlines are required to provide only 24 hours of rest to pilots at the destination city. There are no such requirements for pilots on reserve.

Pilot fatigue has been an issue of concern for many aviation experts. The National Transportation Safety Board confirms that pilot fatigue has been linked to “many accidents” including a Delta connection flight in 2007, in which the plane overran the runway while attempting a landing. Pilots' unions are also calling for studies to determine if having 4 pilots on a flight is sufficient for long range flights.

Airline Accident Resources

Our staff has helped many victims of life-altering accidents and injury get the assistance they need, physically, emotionally and financially. If you have questions related to an airline accident, the aviation accident attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP can help.

Recent Airline Accidents Prove Air Safety Risks Continue to Exist

There have been three high profile plane crashes in as many months and it is clear the aviation industry continues to be troubled by safety issues.

The Continental Airlines accident in Denver, Colorado and the crash landing of a U.S. Airways jet liner in the Hudson River last month were luckily resolved with no fatalities; the Denver accident, however, did lead to several injuries. Last week's crash of Continental Airlines Flight 3407 in a Buffalo neighborhood resulted in the deaths of all 49 people on board and one person in the house the plane crashed into. These crashes have brought to light the number of risks air commuters continue to face, despite the fact that there have been dramatic improvements in aviation safety in recent years.

All three crashes are being linked to factors the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has been warning authorities about for years. For instance, the role of flocks of birds causing engine failure, the factor cited as the reason for the U.S. Airways Hudson River crash-landing, has been known for years. Fortunately, the pilot successfully executed a landing on water with no serious injuries or fatalities. Investigators are currently trying to determine if current safety measures to protect against the impact of birds on engines are sufficient.

Ice formation on a plane, especially on the wings, is another known factor that can contribute to plane instability and crashes. Such ice accumulation has been linked to several accidents in the past and is being looked at as a potential cause of the Buffalo plane crash last week. Investigations have found that many pilots are still not able to handle de-icing procedures adequately. The NTSB made airline safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) about improvements in de-icing systems, but these suggestions have not been acted upon. The NTSB, which has no regulatory powers, urged the FAA in 1996 to develop more stringent standards for icing certifications for aircraft. While the FAA responded by mandating that new aircraft be tested for icing conditions, it has not made any such enhanced testing requirements for older aircraft. In fact, the NTSB has more recently made several related recommendations that the FAA has chosen to ignore. 

Commercial Airline Accident Help

Our team has assisted many families in getting help physically, emotionally and financially after a life-altering accident. If you have legal questions regarding injuries or death due to an aviation accident, our team at Arnold & Itkin LLP can get you the help and answers you need.